I see a major problem with this. Why would we assume dolphins have one single language? I see no reason to assume their languages wouldn't be as diverse as ours.

But worse still, you have to factor in the decline in dolphin populations over time. Maybe at their natural numbers, there would have be many thousands of dolphin languages, each spoken by tens of thousands of dolphins. But we've severely degraded their numbers. Now each dolphin language is the equivalent of one of those dying indigenous languages that now only has a handful of living speakers. Dolphin language might be a collection of such near-extinct languages, each highly distinct from each other. Maybe there's thousands of dolphin languages, each spoken by only a few dozen dolphins.

And unlike human languages, these dolphin languages weren't replaced by some broader hegemonic dolphin language, a dolphin English, Spanish, Mandarin, etc. There is no dolphin lingua franca that we can train the model on. There's just a whole series of dolphin language remnants, mutually incomprehensible to each other.

This is a real problem because LLMs require vast quantities of data to train on. It may simply not be possible to gather enough samples of a single dolphin language sufficient in quantity to train an LLM on.

I don't know if we really want to talk to dolphins. Those things are godless.

Does anyone speak Spanish?"

Fuego en el bano! Fuego en el bano!

The supreme court says that the US government just needs to "facilitate" his return.

Any good-faith reading would interpret "facilitate" as the US needs to do everything in its power to bring him back. Roberts tried to do Trump a solid by using very polite language in the Court's order. You are repeating the administration's bad faith interpretation of the ruling, rather than what any lawyer practicing in good faith would actually interpret the order as.

Roberts tried to hand Trump a way to come down from this gently. This is going to go back to SCOTUS, at which point they will issue a ruling that is completely unambiguous and has no wiggle room for bad faith interpretations.

Jesus. This is the same shit that cost Kamala the election. Idiot libs just kept looking at the median inflation-adjusted income and saying, "look, things are fine, in real dollar terms, people's incomes are up!" Yet they never wanted to hear about the intricacies of how inflation is calculated and how the inflation rate can differ between income levels and life situations. In reality, people in the upper middle class experienced a negative inflation rate, while those in the working class experienced a high positive inflation rate. For those who owned a home and a had nice stock portfolio, their assets increased faster than the rising cost of basic goods. People who owned a home were able to refinance their mortgages to 2% and watched as their 401k balances soared. For them, things were great. For people living paycheck to paycheck with nothing to their name but an overdrawn checking account, they got the increased bills without any corresponding increase in owned assets. And that's before you consider how cooked inflation statistics are, downplaying the impacts of basic necessities, the bullshit goods substitution rules, and how cheaper luxuries can mask the soaring cost of necessities in overall inflation figures.

I remember having many conversations on social media with liberals who kept talking about the vibecession. But they didn't want to hear it. They stuck their fingers in their ears, shook their heads, closed their eyes and said, "median inflation adjusted income is up. Median inflation adjusted income is up. Median inflation adjusted income is up." Not in so many words, but that was the mantra. You could point out the numerous flaws in this, and how the very term 'vibecession' was dismissive and insulting to people's real lived experience, but the bastards didn't want to hear it.

Unfortunately for Kamala and for the rest of us, the voters made her hear it.

That is simply not true.

I want so hard to believe in the "abundance agenda," but it just doesn't work on its own. Ultimately, an economy only has so much productive capacity. Yes, YIMBY movements have their place; we should remove irrational barriers to new housing construction like wasteful single family zoning. But the real problem is one of income and wealth inequality. There are only so many workers, so much investment capital, so many productive resources in an economy. It costs money and materials to build homes. If all the wealth is piled at the top, those resources will go towards the whims of the wealthy. If wealth is broadly shared, then those resources will go to the needs of the many. Instead of people learning to become carpenters to build homes for regular people, they study to be shipbuilders to build yachts for the ultra rich. Instead of mills churning out wood, concrete, and steel for ten modest family homes, those resources go to build a single large mansion for one wealthy family. With all the wealth piled at the top, the rich can outbid everyone else for any of the resources needed to build homes. You cannot solve the housing crisis without tackling wealth and income inequality first.

He's going to add his political enemies to the Death Master File and invalidate their Social Security Numbers.

The problem with sanctioning and tariffing everyone around you is that eventually, countries just ignore you all together and start trading with others.

We're speed running the Confederacy here. The Confederacy thought that King Cotton would save the South. They thought that if the British were cut off from their cotton supply, eventually they would be forced to intervene on the side of the South. Instead, the British eventually just found alternative suppliers in Egypt and India. (They weren't exactly angels here, this was still colonialism.)

Sanctions and tariffs can work if they are limited and targeted. Are there two or three countries that you truly feel are doing abominable things? Then cut them off from the trade system, and they will feel pressured to change their ways. If you embargo or tariff half the planet however, all those affected countries can still trade with each other. If you embargo or tariff too many countries, eventually you are embargoing yourself.

The "crash it and buy the dip" strategy only works if you're confident that asset prices will recover after the crash. There is no guarantee that's the case. Trump is doing damage to the US economy that won't be easily recovered. Even if free and fair elections happen in 2028. Even if a Democrat manages to win. Even if they reverse every one of Trump's economic policies. Even if all of this is true, Trump is doing damage that may not be reversible.

Let's say you're a company overseas that sells a lot of products in the US. You go to great lengths to make your products compatible with American markets and appealing to American consumers. Think of a company in China that makes products for Walmart stores. Walmart works closely with manufacturers. If you want to sell something at Walmart, you need to go through their processes, make products to their specifications, etc. You have to make custom versions of your product just for Walmart stores. Walmart is such a large market that it is worth it for manufacturers to do this, but it is a long and expensive process.

Imagine you're such a Chinese manufacturer, producing products specifically to sell at Walmart. Now you get hit with a massive tariff. Suddenly your Walmart sales drop in half or more. You've spent millions tailoring your products to the needs and preferences of Walmart, and now that investment is just gone. Poof. Millions lost in an instant.

Now imagine that after 2028, all the tariffs go away completely. Are you going to be so eager to go through the process of interfacing with Walmart again? Would you invest those millions again, knowing that in 2032 another Republican arsonist can roll into office and put the tariffs right back up again? I think you would rather spend your finite resources tailoring your products to the consumers of saner countries.

Or consider US arms manufacturers. They're losing a fortune on cancelled arms sales in Europe and other allied countries. The US is now showing itself to be an unreliable ally. As long as the US was a rock-solid member of NATO, countries didn't mind buying F-35s from Lockheed Martin. But if the US's allegiances can swing wildly with each election, that's no longer the case. The F-35 is a modern fighter that runs on American software. Ukraine just found out that a lot of American tech can be remotely disabled at the flip of a switch. Even if a Democrat wins in 2028, and they're the biggest NATO supporter in all of history, would you trust the US? Or would you rather buy something made in Europe that is less risky? If you're Poland looking to buy a jet fighter, one from France probably looks a lot better than one from the US right now. At least France is unlikely to suddenly decide that Putin is great.

Or the ultimate issue - the US's status as the world reserve currency. Trump is currently setting fire to the global trade order put in place after WW2. Remember. This system was built by the US. We dictated the terms of it. We built a system that gave us immense profit and benefit. And Trump is slaughtering the goose that laid the golden egg. The US gains huge economic benefits from being the wold reserve currency, and Trump is in the process of ending that. That isn't something that can just be regained, regardless of who is sitting in the White House in 2029.

This is why I am very skeptical of the narrative that billionaires want Trump to crash the economy so they can buy cheap assets. Buying cheap assets during a crash is only a windfall if the prices of those assets go back up at some point. But Trump is doing a lot of damage to the US economy that simply won't be easy to repair, regardless of what happens in the next election.

That's the problem with founding a state based on genocide and ethnic cleansing. When you've convinced yourself that you're literally doing the will of God, when are you actually "done" with God's work? Just how big is the "Jewish homeland" supposed to be? The Torah said that Yahweh gave the ancient Israelites all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. A fundamentalist Zionist can justify, based on a direct religious reference, that Israel can rightfully expand that far based on the direct word of God. And God never said the Israelis couldn't conquer more land beyond those bounds. It's a recipe for self-destructive never-ending conflict.

Israel's MO is pretty obvious at this point:

1. Antagonize your neighbors just over the border until they start attacking you back.
2. When your neighbors retaliate against your harassment and violence, send in the military to secure a "buffer zone," billed as a demilitarized zone like the Korean DMZ. Say you can't have Jews and Arabs living right next door to each other, so a buffer is needed.
3. Once the buffer zone is established, let Jewish settlers in to build towns and cities in what was supposed to be an empty safety buffer.
4. After a few years, Jews and Arabs are once again on each other's doorstep.
5. Start again antagonizing the neighbors (who are usually the same people you displaced a generation ago.)

This has been Israel's strategy for decades. They've seized "buffer zone" after "buffer zone." They let their people move into the buffer zone, and then suddenly they don't have a buffer zone anymore. They use their own civilian population as human shields, putting them in a position where they are guaranteed to be attacked by angry people the Israeli government and settler forces are continually antagonizing. Then when they're inevitably attacked, that can be used to justify expanding the borders even further. Oh, and none of their neighbors can resist this process through direct military action, as Israel has a nuclear arsenal. No one can afford to get in a total war with Israel.

I really don't know where this ends. At this point I think the best thing for Mideast peace would be the Iranians, Egyptians, or Turks getting a nuclear weapon themselves. The only thing that's going to stop the never-ending drive for Israeli lebensraum is if they expand until they're up against someone too tough for them to boss around. And that's probably going to need to be a country that is themselves a nuclear power.

The other problem with this expansion is that it gets baked into the Israeli society and economy. It's a bit like what happened with ancient Rome. Their whole economy became dependent on this process of expanding, conquering peoples, subjugating and enslaving them, etc. They had to keep expanding just to keep their economy running. They paid their retired veterans with stolen land. The only way you can keep that model going is by expanding forever. And eventually they expanded beyond what they could manage. The same thing is happening in Israel. They have whole sectors of their economy dependent on this process of expansion and settlement. At this point, even if they wanted to, they can't just say, "ok, we've expanded enough. These are our fixed borders now and forever." They can't do that without collapsing the part of their economy that is dependent on selling and developing all the land they take. They can't have peace without causing a massive recession. They've become addicted to stealing land.

Grifters gonna grift. My guess is she decided she wasn't ever going to be able to make a living as a fencer, and her other career prospects aren't looking great. So she decides to make a buck by becoming a right wing commenter/grifter. She happened to be paired against a trans woman in a competition and saw it as her chance to make a buck and launch an influencer career.